Peterson v. Goldin

District court holds that alleged similarities between Netflix show King of Collectibles: The Goldin Touch and plaintiff’s treatment and sizzle reel for Goldin Boys are unprotectable ideas and scènes à faire, granting motion to dismiss copyright infringement action.

Gervase Peterson, a former Survivor reality show contestant, sued Ken Goldin, Goldin Auctions, Netflix, Spoke Studios and Wheelhouse Entertainment for copyright infringement, claiming that they unlawfully copied his treatment for a series about Goldin’s sports memorabilia and collectibles business, Goldin Auctions, and a “sizzle reel” to promote it. Peterson alleged that substantial similarities existed between his works and Netflix’s King of Collectibles: The Goldin Touch reality series about Goldin Auctions.  

Peterson alleged that he had met with Goldin in 2019 to discuss the production of a short promotional video to pitch a show about Goldin’s business. Peterson created the reel and published it online in 2020. Three years later, Netflix premiered its own series about Goldin Auctions. Peterson claimed that Goldin shopped his sizzle reel to Netflix, Spoke Studios and Wheelhouse Entertainment without his permission. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, and the court granted defendants’ motion in full, dismissing the claims with prejudice.

Peterson pointed to four purported similarities between the Netflix series and his treatment and sizzle reel that he claimed constituted infringement: (1) featuring Goldin and his employee Dave Amerman; (2) using Amerman’s “second in command” character trope; (3) featuring celebrity athlete interviews; and (4) including segments about Jackie Robinson memorabilia. The court, however, observed that “[r]eality television shows are frequently found to be rife with unprotectable ideas and scènes à faire,” and “[f]or this reason, courts routinely dismiss copyright claims alleging that the idea for a reality show is protectable and has been infringed.” Peterson’s claim, the court held, was no different. 

According to the court, the alleged similarities were all unprotectable ideas and scènes à faire. It explained that Goldin and Amerman are “real people portraying themselves and are indispensable from the daily functions of Goldin Auctions.” It further held that Amerman’s “right-hand man” character is a “generic prototype” that is not entitled to copyright protection. Regarding the interviews with celebrity athletes and segments about Robinson collectibles, the court held that those elements were “generic to the idea of a sports-themed reality television show.” Moreover, it noted, Robinson was not mentioned in the registered versions of Peterson’s treatment and sizzle reel—only in an unregistered “enhanced description” of these works.

Peterson also argued that Netflix’s series and his sizzle reel “share[] the same pacing, look, feel and editing.” However, because Peterson did not elaborate sufficiently on this point, the court held this allegation was conclusory and formulaic and therefore did not meet the required pleading standard for a copyright infringement claim.

Finally, Peterson brought a claim under New Jersey’s Uniform Partnership Act, alleging that he created a partnership with the Goldin defendants and that they violated their duty of loyalty to the partnership by shopping the sizzle reel and making the Netflix series. However, the court held that Peterson failed to address defendants’ argument that no partnership existed and therefore waived the claim.   

Summary prepared by Frank D’Angelo and Nathalie Russell